6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Omsk.
7.  The applicant suffers from schizophrenia, which was first diagnosed in 1987. In the 1980s and early 1990s he was employed as a bus driver, but in 1995 he stopped working. The applicant kept writing nonsensical letters to state officials and lodged numerous administrative complaints and lawsuits. At some point he started giving money and clothes to strangers and invited them to his house, explaining it by religious considerations. Such behaviour led to recurrent conflicts with his wife. The applicant became irritable, aggressive and once in 1996 tried to strangulate her. As a result, they divorced. In 1998 the applicant was officially given the “2nd degree disability” status due to his mental disorder.
8.  Between 1989 and 17 July 2000 the applicant was hospitalised nine times in the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital. As follows from the opinion of the Serbskiy Institute of 19 August 1999 (a leading State psychiatric research centre based in Moscow) during that period the applicant considered himself as a “defender of justice”, believed that he knew important State secrets, and claimed that there was a conspiracy against him. Amongst other things, he challenged his diagnosis, complained of his confinement to the hospital, threatened the doctors who had been treating him in the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital, and tried to institute criminal proceedings against them. The report did not mention any incidence of violence or self-destructive behaviour after 1996, and it was not alleged that during that period the applicant was unable to take care of himself in everyday life. However, it is clear that his mental condition had a persistent character, and that he kept harassing doctors from the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital with complaints and litigations.
9.  On 5 April 2000 the applicant underwent an examination in the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital by a panel of doctors, who confirmed the previous diagnosis and the opinion by the Serbskiy Institute and concluded that the applicant was “incapable of understanding the meaning of his actions and was unable to control them”.
10.  On 16 June 2000, following an application by the public prosecutor, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk declared the applicant legally incapacitated because of his illness. The hearing took place in the absence of the applicant. On 30 August 2000 the Omsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court.
11.  On an unspecified date the Omsk Municipal Public Health Department appointed the applicant’s father as his guardian.
12.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant’s daughter brought court proceedings seeking to restore his legal capacity. Her request was supported by the applicant’s father as guardian. The plaintiffs claimed that the applicant’s mental state had significantly improved and requested that the court conduct a new psychiatric examination of his health. As the plaintiffs did not trust doctors from the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital, they insisted that the process of the psychiatric examination of the applicant be recorded on a videotape.
13.  On 27 October 2000 the court commissioned a psychiatric examination of the applicant, but refused to order a video recording of it. The expert examination was entrusted to the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital. However, the applicant failed to submit himself for an examination at the hospital, so the examination was not conducted.
14.  On 19 March 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Omsk decided to confirm the status of legal incapacity and maintain the applicant’s guardianship. It is unclear whether the applicant was present at the hearing. The court noted that because the new expert examination could not be conducted due to the applicant’s failure to cooperate, the results of the examination of 5 April 2000 were still applicable. It appears that the decision of 19 March 2001 was not appealed against.
15.  On 9 July 2001 the applicant’s father (as guardian) instituted court proceedings challenging the medical report of 5 April 2000 by the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital which had served as grounds for declaring the applicant legally incapacitated. He also sought restoration of the applicant’s legal capacity. Since the plaintiffs did not trust doctors from the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital they requested that the court commission a panel of experts from the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia, a non-State professional association of psychiatrists, based in Moscow, to assess the applicant’s mental capacity.
16.  On 26 February 2002 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court held a hearing in the applicant’s absence, having decided in particular that:
“... [the applicant’s] mental condition prevented him from taking part in the hearing, and, moreover, [his] presence would be prejudicial to his health”.
The court further refused to commission a new expert examination by a non-State psychiatric association, on the ground that only State-run institutions were allowed by law to conduct such examinations and issue reports. The relevant part of the District Court judgment reads as follows:
“... under section 1 of the Psychiatric Care Act ... State forensic examination activity in judicial proceedings is carried out by State forensic examination institutions, and consists of organising and implementing the forensic examination”.
In conclusion the court found that the expert report of 5 April 2000 was still valid, that the applicant continued to suffer from a mental disorder and that, therefore, his status as a legally incapacitated person should be maintained.
17.  The applicant’s father (as his guardian) appealed to the Omsk Regional Court, which on 15 May 2002 upheld the judgment of 26 February 2002.
18.  Some time later the applicant’s father solicited an opinion from Dr S., a psychiatrist not affiliated with the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital, concerning the applicant’s mental condition. Dr S. examined the applicant and on 1 July 2002 he submitted a report according to which the applicant’s mental illness was not as serious as claimed by the doctors at the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital.
19.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant’s father, as his guardian, delivered a power of attorney to a third person, mandating that person to act in the applicant’s name. However, a notary public refused to certify the power of attorney, on the basis that under the law a guardian should represent his ward personally and could not confer his duties on a third person. The applicant’s father brought proceedings against the notary public in court, but to no avail: on 10 October 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Omsk confirmed the lawfulness of the refusal.
20.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant and his fiancée, Ms D., requested that the municipality register their marriage. According to the applicant, they received no reply from the municipality.
21.  On 4 December 2002 a district psychiatrist (uchastkovyi psikhiatr) examined the applicant and concluded that the latter suffered from “paranoid schizophrenia with paraphrenic delusion of reformism”. The psychiatrist delivered a hospitalisation order, which relied strongly on the “nonsensical complaints” lodged by the applicant’s representatives.
22.  On 6 December 2002 the Guardianship Council of the Omsk Region decided to strip the applicant’s father of his status as the applicant’s guardian. The decision was taken by the Guardianship Council without the applicant or his father being heard.
23.  By virtue of the hospitalisation order the applicant was placed in the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital on 9 December 2002. According to the applicant, he and his father unambiguously opposed this provisional placement in the hospital.
24.  On the same day a panel of three doctors from the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital examined the applicant and concluded that he should stay in the hospital. They mostly based themselves on the medical history of the applicant that had led to the deprivation of legal capacity. The report stated that the worsening of the applicant’s mental condition was demonstrated by the numerous complaints by which he had tried to recover his legal capacity and challenge the actions of the hospital.
25.  On 10 December 2002 the Omsk Municipal Public Health Authority approved the decision taken by the Guardianship Council on 6 December 2002. From that moment on the applicant’s father ceased to be his guardian and, according to the Government, the functions of the applicant’s guardian were performed by the municipal authorities, namely the Omsk Public Health Authority.
26.  On 11 December 2002 the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital requested that the Kuybyshevskiy District Court authorise the applicant’s further confinement. On the same day the judge, in accordance with section 33 of the Psychiatric Care Act, ordered that the applicant be held in the hospital for such time as was necessary for the examination of his case. The provisional order issued by the judge was a one-sentence annotation on the hospitalisation order of 4 December 2002: “I hereby authorise detention [in hospital] pending the examination [of the case] on the merits”.
27.  Having been informed of that ruling, the applicant asked the hospital staff to release him for home treatment. The hospital staff refused, however, and prohibited him from seeing his relatives or talking to them.
28.  On 15 December 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the court for his release from the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital. However, the judge informed the applicant by letter that such a provisional placement of a patient in a psychiatric hospital for a period necessary for the examination of the case on the merits was not subject to judicial review.
29.  On 17 December 2002 the District Court held a hearing in the presence of the applicant, the applicant’s father, the public prosecutor, and a representative of the hospital. From the case file it appears that the participants and the judge himself were not aware that the applicant’s father was no longer the applicant’s guardian.
30.  At that hearing the applicant and his father claimed that the applicant’s condition did not require hospitalisation. They insisted that the hospital had not proved the medical necessity of such a measure. The applicant and his father referred to the report by Dr. S. of 1 July 2002 (see paragraph 18 above). In order to clarify the matter, the applicant asked the court to commission a fresh medical examination of his mental health, in order to establish whether there had been any deterioration. The court rejected the request, while at the same time admitting the applicant’s medical record in evidence. At the end of the day the hearing was adjourned to 24 December 2002.
31.  On 20 December 2002 the Guardianship Council appointed the administration of the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital as the applicant’s guardian and delivered an authorisation for his extended confinement in the hospital.
32.  On 24 December 2002, without holding a hearing, the District Court closed the proceedings because the hospital, as the applicant’s only legitimate guardian, had revoked its request for authorisation of his confinement. The applicant’s confinement was thus considered to be “voluntary”, and therefore did not require court approval.
33.  On the same day, the applicant’s father and fiancée asked the court to give them a copy of the decision, so that they could lodge an appeal. The judge refused because the applicant’s father, who was no longer his guardian, could not act on behalf of the applicant. The court also denied a request to consider the applicant’s fiancée to be his representative.
34.   On 27 January 2003, the applicant’s fiancée wrote a letter to the Guardianship Council where she requested that the council appoint her as the guardian of “her husband, Mr. Lashin”. There is no information whether she received any reply.
35.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s father lodged an appeal against the decision of 24 December 2002. On 10 February 2003 the Regional Court refused to examine the appeal on the grounds that the applicant’s father had no right to represent his son and that no decision on the merits of the case had been taken by the first-instance court.
36.  On 2 February 2003 the applicant’s fiancée lodged a supervisory review appeal, which was returned to her without examination on 13 February 2003 on the basis that she had no power to represent the applicant.
37.  In the following months the applicant’s father and fiancée lodged several criminal-law complaints against the hospital and its doctors. Their complaints were addressed to various state authorities and the courts. It appears that none of those complaints was successful.
38.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s father challenged the decision of the Guardianship Council of 6 December 2002, as approved by the municipal authorities on 10 December 2002, stripping him of his status as the applicant’s guardian. On 16 July 2003 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk upheld the decision of the Guardianship Council. The District Court found that the applicant’s father had neglected his duties on many occasions and had tried to entrust the guardianship to a third party, referring in particular to the episode concerning the power of attorney (see paragraph 19 above). The court also noted that the applicant’s father had failed to secure appropriate medical treatment for the applicant as prescribed by the doctors, as a result of which the applicant’s condition had worsened. According to the applicant, he lodged an appeal against that decision.
39.  In their letters to the Court of 28 July 2002 and 25 July 2003 the applicant and his fiancée informed the Court of their desire to marry.
40.  On 10 October 2003 the Guardianship Council decided to appoint the applicant’s daughter as his guardian. That decision was approved by the municipality on 17 October 2003.
41.  On 10 December 2003 the applicant was released from the town hospital. The medical report issued in connection with the applicant’s discharge indicated that his mental health during his confinement had been predominantly characterised by “litigious” ideas similar to those he had presented at the time of his admission.
42.  It appears that in 2006 the applicant’s relatives brought court proceedings seeking to restore the applicant’s full legal capacity. The Court has not been provided with any information about the outcome of those proceedings.